Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you deliberate misunderstand in order to defend your position or is this just a case of you again not understanding the points other people make?

I understand it completely.

However, if you mean something other than it's per se "not within free speech to say 'I'm going to murder the President'" , then you'll have to explain what it is that you mean. Obviously, the answer is "it depends on some other things" as to whether that statement will get you in hot water. In and of itself, it is not illegal. It is free speech. If, however, there is non-speech-related evidence that it's a serious threat, like if the person who says it is armed, headed to the President's location, etc., or sitting in his basement making bombs and drawing diagrams of viewpoints from book repositories, etc.

In other words -- for it to be illegal, there has to be something more than just pure speech at issue.

You say that to the president and you can be locked up. Three times is the magic number for the FBI to descend on you.

I really have to spell out everything in the most petty detail for you?

If you say "I'm going to kill the President" in front of the President, of course they'll descend upon you. That's no different than someone announcing they're going to punch you in the face and take your wallet. You take a step to prevent it, but the guy wouldn't end up prosecuted for just saying "I'm going to kill the President." So much of that happens all the time -- sometimes it's investigated by the Secret Service and almost always nothing becomes of it.

I'm not going to get into this shit flinging with you, Zilla.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is why we should not easily go down this censorship road: http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2010/09/16 ... sculpture/

Suddenly, every sensitivity must be catered to. Now, this guy can't make a statue without getting banned from promoting it.

[Seth]

Do you deliberate misunderstand in order to defend your position or is this just a case of you again not understanding the points other people make?

I understand it completely.

However, if you mean something other than it's per se "not within free speech to say 'I'm going to murder the President'" , then you'll have to explain what it is that you mean. Obviously, the answer is "it depends on some other things" as to whether that statement will get you in hot water. In and of itself, it is not illegal. It is free speech. If, however, there is non-speech-related evidence that it's a serious threat, like if the person who says it is armed, headed to the President's location, etc., or sitting in his basement making bombs and drawing diagrams of viewpoints from book repositories, etc.

In other words -- for it to be illegal, there has to be something more than just pure speech at issue.

You say that to the president and you can be locked up. Three times is the magic number for the FBI to descend on you.

I really have to spell out everything in the most petty detail for you?

If you say "I'm going to kill the President" in front of the President, of course they'll descend upon you. That's no different than someone announcing they're going to punch you in the face and take your wallet. You take a step to prevent it, but the guy wouldn't end up prosecuted for just saying "I'm going to kill the President." So much of that happens all the time -- sometimes it's investigated by the Secret Service and almost always nothing becomes of it.

I'm not going to get into this shit flinging with you, Zilla.

Correct. The law makes it unlawful to make a CREDIBLE threat against the President, which means something more than just saying it. Now, the Secret Service usually investigates a written or spoken "threat" but as you say it most often comes down to them saying, "Please try to restrain yourself a bit more so we don't have to come back again" rather than any enforcement action.

Much of the time, such expressions of political feeling are simply ignored, like "hanging in effigy" or placards at a protest march advocating the killing of the president. This is because its seen for what it is, an expression of protected political speech, not a credible threat of violence.

[pErvinalia]

Just because you call that which is not speech speech doesn't make it so.

I have just as much right to define it as any judge you or wikipedia.

Sure, but when discussing a legal issue, you're own peculiar definition doesn't control the law.

But that's the point that is being made. The law reduces what is classified as free speech, so it's easy for you and others to claim that something isn't a restriction of free speech. Your argument is circular. Calling speech "free", when in fact it isn't free and specifically prohibits certain types of speech, is the nonsensical thing, not Jonno's argument. The point being made is that NO civilised nation has totally free speech. Now just because Jonno goes totally the other way into authoritarian territory, doesn't change that fact.

[MrJonno]

Civilization is as about restrictions on what you can do as freedoms that you can use, ie authority is required

[Jason]

Did someone say civilization?

[mozg]

But that's the point that is being made. The law reduces what is classified as free speech, so it's easy for you and others to claim that something isn't a restriction of free speech. Your argument is circular. Calling speech "free", when in fact it isn't free and specifically prohibits certain types of speech, is the nonsensical thing, not Jonno's argument. The point being made is that NO civilised nation has totally free speech. Now just because Jonno goes totally the other way into authoritarian territory, doesn't change that fact.

The difference though is that the law allows penalties for certain kind of speech that cause demonstrated harm. Yes, we all know it's illegal to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater and incite a panic - but the government does not force you to wear a ball gag to go into a theater that can only be removed if you prove to them that you are a responsible citizen who can use the ability to speak without harming people.

You can be punished for inciting riots or making credible threats online, but those are still examples of where the law comes in after the crime has been committed. The analogy breaks down because unlike with firearms where all of the restrictions that people want would apply to those who have committed no crime, there is no similar restriction with speech. Nobody has to pass a criminal background check to purchase a computer or sign up for Internet service. If laws regarding speech were similar to laws regarding firearms, you'd have to get a NICS check to create a Twitter account.

[MrJonno]

The only reason you can't be arrested before you shout fire in a cinema is because mind reading technology doesnt exist.
If the governent could read your mind and see you were imminently about to shout fire they would be able to arrest for conspiracy to start a riot

[Seth]

The only reason you can't be arrested before you shout fire in a cinema is because mind reading technology doesnt exist.
If the governent could read your mind and see you were imminently about to shout fire they would be able to arrest for conspiracy to start a riot

Ah, the "Majority Report" pre-crime nutbaggery.

Well, they can't, and so they don't.

Also, they can't tell if I'm about to imminently take one of my many rifles and go shoot up a movie theater, so there's no legitimate authority or reason for the government to deny me my right to keep and bear arms in advance of that act.

That's how our system works. We (unlike the UK) don't generally engage in prior restraint of civil rights.

By the way, it's NOT illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. It's only illegal to FALSELY shout "FIRE" in order to create a panic, just as it would be illegal to falsely shout "THERE'S A GUY WITH A GUN! RUN!!" merely because you happened to see a law-abiding citizen's concealed weapon for some reason (perhaps his jacket rucked-up as he sat down).

[Seth]

But that's the point that is being made. The law reduces what is classified as free speech, so it's easy for you and others to claim that something isn't a restriction of free speech. Your argument is circular. Calling speech "free", when in fact it isn't free and specifically prohibits certain types of speech, is the nonsensical thing, not Jonno's argument. The point being made is that NO civilised nation has totally free speech. Now just because Jonno goes totally the other way into authoritarian territory, doesn't change that fact.

The difference though is that the law allows penalties for certain kind of speech that cause demonstrated harm. Yes, we all know it's illegal to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater and incite a panic - but the government does not force you to wear a ball gag to go into a theater that can only be removed if you prove to them that you are a responsible citizen who can use the ability to speak without harming people.

You can be punished for inciting riots or making credible threats online, but those are still examples of where the law comes in after the crime has been committed. The analogy breaks down because unlike with firearms where all of the restrictions that people want would apply to those who have committed no crime, there is no similar restriction with speech. Nobody has to pass a criminal background check to purchase a computer or sign up for Internet service. If laws regarding speech were similar to laws regarding firearms, you'd have to get a NICS check to create a Twitter account.

CREATE a Twitter account? You'd have to get a NICS check before you tweet, every time. You'd have to submit your Tweet to NICS to find out if you're allowed to say that.